Roosevelt's Administration: The Way It Was

[PoliticalChic]

Question:
Is the conservative stand today on FDR that he should not have prepared America for war, or that FDR's preparing for war brought the war to America? Conservatives seem able to go either way depending.
In any case the Republicans fought FDR on his war preparations and in some instances FDR simply ignored the Republican isolationists and prepared anyway.
So again, do Republicans today approve or dissaprove of FDR's fight for wartime preparations, should FDR have done more, less or did he do it just right?

Can't you read?????

 

[Camp]

"M. Stanton Evans was an infant during the period being discussed."

What a dumb obfuscation....and the default one from you.

I wasn't even born....yet clearly know more about same than you do.



Where did you learn that the correct response to a fact, a truth, is to bring up something about the person speaking the truth???


Government schooling at it's finest.




"He was the leader of the USA who in the 1940's blah blah blah....."

Then you amble off ignoring the facts that show you to be the dolt that you are.

Cool, but an old trick. Obfucate by accusing the other guy of obfuscation.
The point of the guy being an infant during the period being discussed was to show he had no empirical knowledge of the era. Some folks think it makes a difference. You know, did the person live through the period or are they writing purely from academic research.
The guy wasn't telling the truth. He was giving an opinion on a topic (military preparedness) that he was obviously not qualified to address.
So will this be your only excuse for NOT addressing the issue's that refutes your idiotic and ill informed thesis?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"M. Stanton Evans was an infant during the period being discussed."

What a dumb obfuscation....and the default one from you.

I wasn't even born....yet clearly know more about same than you do.



Where did you learn that the correct response to a fact, a truth, is to bring up something about the person speaking the truth???


Government schooling at it's finest.




"He was the leader of the USA who in the 1940's blah blah blah....."

Then you amble off ignoring the facts that show you to be the dolt that you are.

Cool, but an old trick. Obfucate by accusing the other guy of obfuscation.
The point of the guy being an infant during the period being discussed was to show he had no empirical knowledge of the era. Some folks think it makes a difference. You know, did the person live through the period or are they writing purely from academic research.
The guy wasn't telling the truth. He was giving an opinion on a topic (military preparedness) that he was obviously not qualified to address.
So will this be your only excuse for NOT addressing the issue's that refutes your idiotic and ill informed thesis?

1. You crowed that FDR prepared the nation for war....I showed that you are full of beans.

2. "The guy wasn't telling the truth."
So....you're upset because he's bitin' on your line???
Nah...you're safe as the in-house liar.

3. "...are they writing purely from academic research..."
This has to be the winner in the category of 'Unintentional Humor.'

a. Bet you'll hate this, by a Columbia University guy:
In an insightful analysis, John A. Garraty compared Roosevelt’s New Deal with aspects of the Third Reich: a strong leader; an ideology stressing the nation, the people and the land; state control of economic and social affairs; and the quality and quantity of government propaganda.
Garraty, “The New Deal, National Socialism, and the Great Depression,” American Historical Review, vol. 78 (1973) p. 907ff.

4. For days I've proven that your idol had feet of clay......
...no wonder you're sulking.

 

[Rich_Kotite]

Cool, but an old trick. Obfucate by accusing the other guy of obfuscation.
The point of the guy being an infant during the period being discussed was to show he had no empirical knowledge of the era. Some folks think it makes a difference. You know, did the person live through the period or are they writing purely from academic research.
The guy wasn't telling the truth. He was giving an opinion on a topic (military preparedness) that he was obviously not qualified to address.
So will this be your only excuse for NOT addressing the issue's that refutes your idiotic and ill informed thesis?[/QUOTE]


How many times have you participated in some version of "FDR was a Communist" or "Stalin duped the US in WWII" threads?

 

[regent]

"M. Stanton Evans was an infant during the period being discussed."

What a dumb obfuscation....and the default one from you.

I wasn't even born....yet clearly know more about same than you do.



Where did you learn that the correct response to a fact, a truth, is to bring up something about the person speaking the truth???


Government schooling at it's finest.




"He was the leader of the USA who in the 1940's blah blah blah....."

Then you amble off ignoring the facts that show you to be the dolt that you are.

Cool, but an old trick. Obfucate by accusing the other guy of obfuscation.
The point of the guy being an infant during the period being discussed was to show he had no empirical knowledge of the era. Some folks think it makes a difference. You know, did the person live through the period or are they writing purely from academic research.
The guy wasn't telling the truth. He was giving an opinion on a topic (military preparedness) that he was obviously not qualified to address.
So will this be your only excuse for NOT addressing the issue's that refutes your idiotic and ill informed thesis?

1. You crowed that FDR prepared the nation for war....I showed that you are full of beans.

2. "The guy wasn't telling the truth."
So....you're upset because he's bitin' on your line???
Nah...you're safe as the in-house liar.

3. "...are they writing purely from academic research..."
This has to be the winner in the category of 'Unintentional Humor.'

a. Bet you'll hate this, by a Columbia University guy:
In an insightful analysis, John A. Garraty compared Roosevelt’s New Deal with aspects of the Third Reich: a strong leader; an ideology stressing the nation, the people and the land; state control of economic and social affairs; and the quality and quantity of government propaganda.
Garraty, “The New Deal, National Socialism, and the Great Depression,” American Historical Review, vol. 78 (1973) p. 907ff.

4. For days I've proven that your idol had feet of clay......
...no wonder you're sulking.

So your tack today is that FDR didn't prepare for war, right? Fifty destroyers to Britain, Lend Lease, Army camps being built naval ships, airplanes being developed, first American peace-time draft. In fact that first peace time draft had been passed with Republicans voting no. The draft was for one year and FDR asked the time be extended, and it passed Congress by one vote, that was about four months before Pearl Harbor. The Arms embargo prevented sales to those against the axis nations and FDR asked it be repealed. The War Resources agency was established in 1939, and 1939 is generally accepted as the beginning of the US preparation for war, and the Republicans fought every preparation except those big contracts going to business. At the time Republicans called FDR a war monger.

 

[Rich_Kotite]

So your tack today is that FDR didn't prepare for war, right? Fifty destroyers to Britain, Lend Lease, Army camps being built naval ships, airplanes being developed, first American peace-time draft. In fact that first peace time draft had been passed with Republicans voting no. The draft was for one year and FDR asked the time be extended, and it passed Congress by one vote, that was about four months before Pearl Harbor. The Arms embargo prevented sales to those against the axis nations and FDR asked it be repealed. The War Resources agency was established in 1939, and 1939 is generally accepted as the beginning of the US preparation for war, and the Republicans fought every preparation except those big contracts going to business. At the time Republicans called FDR a war monger.[/QUOTE]


The US was already fighting an undeclared war on the Atlantic. It's worth noting that this undeclared war preceded Hitler's invasion of the USSR.

 

[Camp]

a. Bet you'll hate this, by a Columbia University guy:
In an insightful analysis, John A. Garraty compared Roosevelt’s New Deal with aspects of the Third Reich: a strong leader; an ideology stressing the nation, the people and the land; state control of economic and social affairs; and the quality and quantity of government propaganda.
Garraty, “The New Deal, National Socialism, and the Great Depression,” American Historical Review, vol. 78 (1973) p. 907ff.

In your wildest dreams you envision an historian of the stature of Garraty supporting your thesis. You might even pray to find quotes from historians like Garraty that you can use to prove your case. Keep deluding yourself.

John A. Garraty has done great works, and alot of them. Check out "1001 THINGS EVERYONE SHOUD KNOW ABOUT AMERICAN HISTORY". For some challanges, check out "QUARELS THAT HAVE SHAPED THE NATION" and/or "HISTORICAL VIEWPOINTS".

 

[Unkotare]

Those who would defend the scumbag FDR are so invested in their idol nuthugging that they will ignore or justify anything in doing so.

 

[Steven_R]

I'm not sure that it quite constitutes ideological nuthugging to say the country was unprepared for WW2 and then examining just how true of a statement that is and looking into the causes if it was true.